Wikipedia?
 

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:06 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:31:08 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and
do
nothing about it.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

2) If it is not within your control you can make a better case to
whoever's responsibility it is to get it fixed.

Because only you will be aware of the problem, right?

Many organizations will reject complaints unless they receive a lot that are
the same.

For instance It took over four weeks of persistant complaints from a dozen
or so people to get Google to admit that the google mobilizer script was
corrupt on their UK based cache server yet that was a total outage of all
mobilized search results in the UK. Somone has to complain or nothing
happens.


Like I said: it makes no difference.

Like I and he said, it helps to know where the problem lies.

Say it all you like, knowing that other people can access a site
doesn't tell you where the problem lies and doesn't help you access
the site, it just tells you the site isn't down.

It tells you if it's worth going round to someone elses house to use a
different ISP, or into town to try using a WiFi hotspot.


You still can't access the site, regardless of what you _think_ you
know about the problem. You still have to find something else to do
while you wait till it's fixed, whether you manage to track down
someone to report it to or not.

Your argument rests on the ridiculous premise that you and you alone
are aware that there's a problem and where it is, and without you
saving the day the problem will continue.

That's your philosophy is it.
Some other mug can do all the work.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

Wikipedia?
 

On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

Cheers

mark-r

Wikipedia?
 

In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of Swindon),
Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick, Barking Brassware
Company - and probably many others.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Wikipedia?
 

charles wrote:

"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

A long time ago there was a company called Kent Meters, in turn they
became Kent Taylor Meters, and then ABB Kent Taylor where ABB stood for
ASEA Brown Boveri (the Cie probably got lost at that stage) and ASEA
stood for Allmänna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget.

Eventually, instead of Allmänna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget Brown
Boveri Kent Taylor Meters, they went back to being plain old Kent Meters.

But I notice today that www.kentmeters.co.uk leads to Elster Metering

Could be worse, AquaModus or something ...

Wikipedia?
 

On Nov 16, 9:00*am, yaffle53 wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:42*pm, Poldie wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "

wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

That site isn't working on my PC. Anyone else?
Cheers
Jeff

It's normal with me. AOL/UK

Wikipedia?
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2010\11\16 14:51, Bruce wrote:
"Jim wrote:

There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.


Wikipedia is dramatically better than it was only a couple of years
ago, but some still criticise it on the basis of how it used to be.

I think the improvement is a result of people actively editing
Wikipedia to correct inaccuracies rather than pointing the finger and
passively moaning about it. But some people are still whining ...


I wish someone would edit the article on Superlens... I don't understand
a word of it.


That's a classic. ;-)

Wikipedia?
 

On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

In general, articles on people - especially still-living people,
especially if in politics rather than other fields - are liable to be
spoiled, but on uncontroversial subjects, especially difficult science
ones, it's generally good. (IME.)

If you follow the link, and look at the IP address for the edit, you'll
find it was in a range used by the BBC.

If you could read the article, and note that all the previous similar
ones were better worded, and clearly stated things like "Individuals
using computers registered to the Vatican have amended entries on Roman
Catholic saints".

Andy

Wikipedia?
 

In message , charles
writes:
In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

(-: - but anyone over a certain age (who is into technology, at least)
would indeed think of an old B (or Master) on hearing that phrase. (As
at least one other here has agreed!)

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".

I'm not sure it was ever spelt out like that, though I agree it did get
"Microcomputer" when it was being formally addressed (!).

"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

I remember being a little puzzled why the BBC were making 'fridges!

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of Swindon),
Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick, Barking Brassware
Company - and probably many others.

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A true-born Englishman does not know any language. He does not speak English
too
well either but, at least, he is not proud of this. He is, however, immensely
proud of not knowing any foreign languages. (George Mikes, "How to be
Inimitable" [1960].)

Wikipedia?
 

In message , Froot Bat
writes:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:06 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:31:08 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and do
nothing about it.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

2) If it is not within your control you can make a better case to
whoever's responsibility it is to get it fixed.

Because only you will be aware of the problem, right?

He didn't say that. But if _everybody_ assumed - as you are implying
that you do - that "someone else" would report it, it would be longer
before it was fixed.

Like I said: it makes no difference.

Like I and he said, it helps to know where the problem lies.

Say it all you like, knowing that other people can access a site
doesn't tell you where the problem lies and doesn't help you access
the site, it just tells you the site isn't down.

Actually, it can help you access the site, if you have access to any
form of rerouter (can you still set some of the translators - like
Google/Babelfish - to "English to English"?). Or, as someone else has
said (if you really need the information in a hurry), going to a friend
who has a different ISP, or a public library: a waste of time if the
site is down. Or you could use your own alternative - a mobile dongle,
perhaps, or even, in extremis, dialup to another ISP.
[]
Your argument rests on the ridiculous premise that you and you alone
are aware that there's a problem and where it is, and without you
saving the day the problem will continue.

And _your_ argument rests on the - not ridiculous, but sad - assumption
that someone else will report/fix it. True, but antisocial.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A true-born Englishman does not know any language. He does not speak English
too
well either but, at least, he is not proud of this. He is, however, immensely
proud of not knowing any foreign languages. (George Mikes, "How to be
Inimitable" [1960].)

Wikipedia?
 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Double
saying something like:

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.